FrediFizzx wrote:Joy, that has been done. The problem is that for that particular CHSH sum, the bound is not 2 for experiments. It is 4 not 2. Of course they never "violate" that.

Exactly! ..... But the Bell-believers keep claiming that they are violating the bound of 2 in the experiments! If so, then I say to them: Please demonstrate that by providing actual data.

***

The actual data from the experiments do violate the bound of 2. You can probably get the data from Weihs, et al (1998) to confirm that.

But they don't violate the real bound of 4 or even the QM bound of 2*sqrt(2) for CHSH.

Indeed. We are both saying the same thing with different words. My point is that the actual data do not violate the absolute bound of 2 on the CHSH sum

E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) - E(a', b' ) ,

where

E(a, b) = << A(a)B(b) >> ,

E(a, b' ) = << A(a)B(b' ) >> ,

E(a', b) = << A(a' )B(b) >> ,

and

E(a', b' ) = << A(a' )B(b' ) >> .

But the experimenters and people like Richard D. Gill are claiming that the latter violation is what is happening in experiments, which is of course false.

***

[quote="FrediFizzx"][quote="Joy Christian"][quote="FrediFizzx"]Joy, that has been done. The problem is that for that particular CHSH sum, the bound is not 2 for experiments. It is 4 not 2. Of course they never "violate" that.[/quote]Exactly! ..... But the Bell-believers keep claiming that they are violating the bound of 2 in the experiments! If so, then I say to them: Please demonstrate that by providing actual data.

***[/quote]The actual data from the experiments do violate the bound of 2. You can probably get the data from Weihs, et al (1998) to confirm that.

But they don't violate the real bound of 4 or even the QM bound of 2*sqrt(2) for CHSH.[/quote]Indeed. We are both saying the same thing with different words. My point is that the actual data do not violate the absolute bound of 2 [u]on the CHSH sum[/u]

E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) - E(a', b' ) ,

where

E(a, b) = << A(a)B(b) >> ,

E(a, b' ) = << A(a)B(b' ) >> ,

E(a', b) = << A(a' )B(b) >> ,

and

E(a', b' ) = << A(a' )B(b' ) >> .

But the experimenters and people like Richard D. Gill are claiming that the latter violation is what is happening in experiments, which is of course false.

FrediFizzx wrote:Joy, that has been done. The problem is that for that particular CHSH sum, the bound is not 2 for experiments. It is 4 not 2. Of course they never "violate" that.

Exactly! ..... But the Bell-believers keep claiming that they are violating the bound of 2 in the experiments! If so, then I say to them: Please demonstrate that by providing actual data.

***

The actual data from the experiments do violate the bound of 2. You can probably get the data from Weihs, et al (1998) to confirm that.

But they don't violate the real bound of 4 or even the QM bound of 2*sqrt(2) for CHSH.

[quote="Joy Christian"][quote="FrediFizzx"]Joy, that has been done. The problem is that for that particular CHSH sum, the bound is not 2 for experiments. It is 4 not 2. Of course they never "violate" that.[/quote]Exactly! ..... But the Bell-believers keep claiming that they are violating the bound of 2 in the experiments! If so, then I say to them: Please demonstrate that by providing actual data.

***[/quote]The actual data from the experiments do violate the bound of 2. You can probably get the data from Weihs, et al (1998) to confirm that.

But they don't violate the real bound of 4 or even the QM bound of 2*sqrt(2) for CHSH.

FrediFizzx wrote:Joy, that has been done. The problem is that for that particular CHSH sum, the bound is not 2 for experiments. It is 4 not 2. Of course they never "violate" that.

Exactly! ..... But the Bell-believers keep claiming that they are violating the bound of 2 in the experiments! If so, then I say to them: Please demonstrate that by providing actual data.

***

[quote="FrediFizzx"]Joy, that has been done. The problem is that for that particular CHSH sum, the bound is not 2 for experiments. It is 4 not 2. Of course they never "violate" that.[/quote]Exactly! ..... But the Bell-believers keep claiming that they are violating the bound of 2 in the experiments! If so, then I say to them: Please demonstrate that by providing actual data.

The traditional interpretation of Bell's theorem is based on the claim that in the actual experiments such as the above the Bell-CHSH inequality with the upper bound of 2 is "violated." If so, then the claimant(s) should be able to provide actual experimental data --- event-by-event --- that violates the Bell-CHSH inequality. In other words, they should be able to provide actual experimental data for which the absolute value of the following sum,

E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) - E(a', b' ) ,

exceeds the bound of 2, where

E(a, b) = << A(a)B(b) >> ,

E(a, b' ) = << A(a)B(b' ) >> ,

E(a', b) = << A(a' )B(b) >> ,

and

E(a', b' ) = << A(a' )B(b' ) >> .

So this is my new (or perhaps not so new) challenge. Please do not try to insult my intelligence by obfuscating the issue with statistics or probabilities. Just face up the challenge!

***

***I posted my original challenge above more than two years ago: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=275#p6681.

To date no one has been able to meet this challenge. And yet, many continue to believe in the traditional interpretation of Bell's theorem: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=342&p=8222#p8221.

The traditional interpretation of Bell's theorem is based on the claim that in the actual experiments such as the above the Bell-CHSH inequality with the upper bound of 2 is "violated." If so, then the claimant(s) should be able to provide actual experimental data --- event-by-event --- that violates the Bell-CHSH inequality. In other words, they should be able to provide actual experimental data for which the absolute value of the following sum,

E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) - E(a', b' ) ,

exceeds the bound of 2, where

E(a, b) = << A(a)B(b) >> ,

E(a, b' ) = << A(a)B(b' ) >> ,

E(a', b) = << A(a' )B(b) >> ,

and

E(a', b' ) = << A(a' )B(b' ) >> .

So this is my new (or perhaps not so new) challenge. Please do not try to insult my intelligence by obfuscating the issue with statistics or probabilities. Just face up the challenge!

Joy Christian wrote:Let me note that for the 4-particle GHZS state the condition E(a, b, c, d) = << ABCD >> = +1 or -1 for some specific settings for all runs and thus even for a single run is similar to the familiar condition E(a, b) = << AB >> = +1 or -1 for the 2-particle EPRB state for some specific settings (i.e., for a = b and a = -b, respectively) for all runs and thus even for a single run. In the latter example, it is the condition of perfect correlation (or perfect anti-correlation), which is predicted by quantum mechanics.

For completeness, let me prove this here for the EPRB case, parallelling the proof below which I provided in response to the counterchallenge to me by Tim Maudlin:

For the EPRB case, let us follow the construction of my 3-sphere model presented in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355. The proof goes through as follows:

What I want to show is AB = -1 for a = +b and AB = +1 for a = -b even for a single run. It would suffice to prove AB = +1 for a = -b since the case AB = -1 for a = +b follows quite similarly. We start with equations (54) and (55) of the above paper, which define the binary valued functions A = +/-1 and B = +/-1, subject to the conservation of the spin-0 defined in equations (65) and (66). The expectation value E(a, b) = < AB > = - a . b is then derived in equations (67) to (75) of the paper using these functions A and B. In fact, the expectation value (75) or (76) follows from the very construction of the functions A and B in the equations (54) and (55), as a geometrical identity within my 3-sphere model. Therefore we can use this geometrical identity to prove that AB = +1 for a = -b. In fact, for the chosen settings this identity reduces simply to E(a, b) = < AB > = +1. But E(a, b) = < AB > = +1 tells us that the average of the number AB is a constant, and it is equal to +1. This is mathematically possible only if AB = +1 for all runs, for a = -b. But if AB = +1 for all runs, then AB = +1 holds also for any given run. Therefore AB = +1 for any single run, for the chosen settings a = -b. QED.

***

[quote="Joy Christian"]Let me note that for the 4-particle GHZS state the condition E(a, b, c, d) = << ABCD >> = +1 or -1 for some specific settings for all runs and thus even for a single run is similar to the familiar condition E(a, b) = << AB >> = +1 or -1 for the 2-particle EPRB state for some specific settings (i.e., for a = b and a = -b, respectively) for all runs and thus even for a single run. In the latter example, it is the condition of perfect correlation (or perfect anti-correlation), which is predicted by quantum mechanics.[/quote]For completeness, let me prove this here for the EPRB case, parallelling the proof below which I provided in response to the counterchallenge to me by Tim Maudlin:

For the EPRB case, let us follow the construction of my 3-sphere model presented in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355. The proof goes through as follows:

[quote]What I want to show is AB = -1 for a = +b and AB = +1 for a = -b even for a single run. It would suffice to prove AB = +1 for a = -b since the case AB = -1 for a = +b follows quite similarly. We start with equations (54) and (55) of the above paper, which define the binary valued functions A = +/-1 and B = +/-1, subject to the conservation of the spin-0 defined in equations (65) and (66). The expectation value E(a, b) = < AB > = - a . b is then derived in equations (67) to (75) of the paper using these functions A and B. In fact, the expectation value (75) or (76) follows from the very construction of the functions A and B in the equations (54) and (55), as a geometrical identity within my 3-sphere model. Therefore we can use this geometrical identity to prove that AB = +1 for a = -b. In fact, for the chosen settings this identity reduces simply to E(a, b) = < AB > = +1. But E(a, b) = < AB > = +1 tells us that the average of the number AB is a constant, and it is equal to +1. This is mathematically possible only if AB = +1 for all runs, for a = -b. But if AB = +1 for all runs, then AB = +1 holds also for any given run. Therefore AB = +1 for any single run, for the chosen settings a = -b. QED.[/quote]***

You, Heinera, on the other hand, is an anonymous nobody. No one knows who you are, or what your education level is. You surely seem to have something to hide.

***

[quote="Heinera"][quote="Joy Christian"]***None of the four individuals is a physicist. One of them is a third-rate statistician, another is a computer plumber, and the remaining two are mediocre philosophers. ***[/quote]Yes. Because there is of course a bunch of physics professors that endorse your work.[/quote]In fact, there most certainly is. Just to name a few, ask any of the following: Prof. Derek Abbott, Prof. Azhar Iqbal, Prof. Subodha Mishra, and Prof. Alex Soiguine.

In addition, the following distinguished Editorial Board of the International Journal of Theoretical Physics has accepted and [url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-014-2412-2]published my work on Bell's theorem[/url]:

Joy Christian wrote:***None of the four individuals is a physicist. One of them is a third-rate statistician, another is a computer plumber, and the remaining two are mediocre philosophers. ***

Yes. Because there is of course a bunch of physics professors that endorse your work.

[quote="Joy Christian"]***None of the four individuals is a physicist. One of them is a third-rate statistician, another is a computer plumber, and the remaining two are mediocre philosophers. ***[/quote]Yes. Because there is of course a bunch of physics professors that endorse your work.

***Let me note that for the 4-particle GHZS state the condition E(a, b, c, d) = << ABCD >> = +1 or -1 for some specific settings for all runs and thus even for a single run is similar to the familiar condition E(a, b) = << AB >> = +1 or -1 for the 2-particle EPRB state for some specific settings (i.e., for a = b and a = -b, respectively) for all runs and thus even for a single run. In the latter example, it is the condition of perfect correlation (or perfect anti-correlation), which is predicted by quantum mechanics.

In other words, there is absolutely nothing mysterious about ABCD = +1 and ABCD = -1 for a single run, for some specific settings, for the GHZS state. But Tim Maudlin wrongly thought that my 7-sphere model for the GHZS state predicts ABCD = +1 always, regardless of the settings a, b, c, and d. His mistake is exactly the same as the one repeatedly made by Richard D. Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Owen Weatherall. They have all wrongly claimed that my 3-sphere model for the 2-particle EPRB state predicts E(a, b) = << AB >> = -1 always, for all settings a and b. The actual prediction of my 3-sphere model is E(a, b) = - a . b, and analogously for E(a, b, c, d):

Both mistakes --- the one made by Tim Maudlin in the GHZS case and the one made by Richard D. Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Owen Weatherall in the EPRB case, stem from ignoring the conservation law for the spins --- namely, the physical fact that the total zero initial spin is conserved throughout each run of the experiment.

So here is a real puzzle: Not only do we learn about the conservation of angular momentum in Physics-101, it has been explicitly discussed in several of my papers on the subject. See for example equations (65) and (66) of this paper for the EPRB case and equations (143) and (144) of this paper for the GHZS case. What is more, the four individuals -- Tim Maudlin, Richard D. Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Owen Weatherall -- are not exactly dummies. They all have professorial positions in highly respectable universities. Moreover, they are all members of the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi). Although I myself have resigned from the institute because of their hypocrisy and politics, it is undoubtedly a prestigious institute, at least because of the sheer number of high-profile scholars they have managed to accumulate.

And yet these individuals have repeatedly made the mistake of ignoring the conservation of angular momentum in considering either EPRB or GHZS type experiments.

Here is the answer to this puzzle:

None of the four individuals is a physicist. One of them is a third-rate statistician, another is a computer plumber, and the remaining two are mediocre philosophers.

***

***Let me note that for the 4-particle GHZS state the condition E(a, b, c, d) = << ABCD >> = +1 or -1 for some specific settings for all runs and thus even for a single run is similar to the familiar condition E(a, b) = << AB >> = +1 or -1 for the 2-particle EPRB state for some specific settings (i.e., for a = b and a = -b, respectively) for all runs and thus even for a single run. In the latter example, it is the condition of perfect correlation (or perfect anti-correlation), which is predicted by quantum mechanics.

In other words, there is absolutely nothing mysterious about ABCD = +1 and ABCD = -1 for a single run, for some specific settings, for the GHZS state. But Tim Maudlin wrongly thought that my 7-sphere model for the GHZS state predicts ABCD = +1 always, regardless of the settings a, b, c, and d. His mistake is exactly the same as the one repeatedly made by Richard D. Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Owen Weatherall. They have all wrongly claimed that my 3-sphere model for the 2-particle EPRB state predicts E(a, b) = << AB >> = -1 always, for all settings a and b. The actual prediction of my 3-sphere model is E(a, b) = - a . b, and analogously for E(a, b, c, d):

Both mistakes --- the one made by Tim Maudlin in the GHZS case and the one made by Richard D. Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Owen Weatherall in the EPRB case, stem from ignoring the conservation law for the spins --- namely, the physical fact that the total zero initial spin is conserved throughout each run of the experiment.

So here is a real puzzle: Not only do we learn about the conservation of angular momentum in Physics-101, it has been explicitly discussed in several of my papers on the subject. See for example equations (65) and (66) of [url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355]this paper[/url] for the EPRB case and equations (143) and (144) of [url=http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13019/]this paper[/url] for the GHZS case. What is more, the four individuals -- Tim Maudlin, Richard D. Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Owen Weatherall -- are not exactly dummies. They all have professorial positions in highly respectable universities. Moreover, they are all members of the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi). Although I myself [url=http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=222&start=20#p6618]have resigned[/url] from the institute because of their hypocrisy and politics, it is undoubtedly a prestigious institute, at least because of the sheer number of high-profile scholars they have managed to accumulate.

And yet these individuals have repeatedly made the mistake of ignoring the conservation of angular momentum in considering either EPRB or GHZS type experiments.

Here is the answer to this puzzle:

None of the four individuals is a physicist. One of them is a third-rate statistician, another is a computer plumber, and the remaining two are mediocre philosophers.

Yes, that was the real Tim Maudlin. And that did not turn out well. What surprised me is that he even bothered to engage in that discussion.

Yeah, it sure didn't turn out so well for Maudlin. He kept proposing something other than Joy's model. I'm not surprised at all since he is just another typical Bell fan troll that had no intention whatsoever of trying to understand the model. Locked up in flatland and probably stuck there forever.

[quote="Heinera"][quote="FrediFizzx"]Hmm... perhaps it was the real Tim Maudlin...

https://www.facebook.com/joyjch/posts/10155817495122856

and did not come back here to admit to his mistake.[/quote]Yes, that was the real Tim Maudlin. And that did not turn out well. What surprised me is that he even bothered to engage in that discussion.[/quote]Yeah, it sure didn't turn out so well for Maudlin. He kept proposing something other than Joy's model. I'm not surprised at all since he is just another typical Bell fan troll that had no intention whatsoever of trying to understand the model. Locked up in flatland and probably stuck there forever.

***Here is one of my last posts on that Facebook thread. It concerns [url=http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/experimental-metaphysics/]my proposed experiment[/url] to test [url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355]my 3-sphere model[/url] as a counterexample to Bell's silly theorem:

He is referring to eqs. (11a) and (11b) of the 1990 Greenberger, Horne, Shimony, Zeilinger paper (or the 4-particle GHZS paper) and eqs. (192) and (203) of [url=http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13019/]my paper[/url].

Now it is impossible to derive the upper bound of 2 on the first expression involving four separate expectation values, and that is the lesson of my unmet challenge.

But the Bell-believers like Richard D. Gill claim that, since the two expressions are mathematically identical at least in the infinite limit, we can and are allowed to consider the second expression, which is trivially bounded by 2 (see, for example, https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876).

The problem is that the second expression is an average over physically impossible events in any possible world, classical or quantum. In other words, physically it is pure nonsense. And therefore the bound of 2 is pure nonsense. It has nothing whatsoever to do with locality or realism.

***

***

Bell-believers are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

As I spelled out in the initial post of this thread, we have two mathematically identical expressions in the Bell-CHSH type argument:

Now it is impossible to derive the upper bound of 2 on the first expression involving four separate expectation values, and that is the lesson of my unmet challenge.

But the Bell-believers like Richard D. Gill claim that, since the two expressions are mathematically identical at least in the infinite limit, we can and are allowed to consider the second expression, which is trivially bounded by 2 (see, for example, https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876).

Well, that argument cleverly hides a clumsy sleight of hand by the Bell-believers, as I have explained elsewhere: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=317#p7864.

The problem is that the second expression is an average over physically [b][i][u]impossible[/u][/i][/b] events in [b][i][u]any[/u][/i][/b] possible world, classical or quantum. In other words, physically it is pure nonsense. And therefore the bound of 2 is pure nonsense. It has nothing whatsoever to do with locality or realism.

Heinera wrote:I have absolutely no intention to participate in this thread except for pointing out that I know that this was not the real Tim Maudlin.

Naturally, since the challenge is impossible for Bell fans to shoot down.

No, it's because of the very wise advise of George Carlin: "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

What's arguing got to do with it? Either you can beat the challenge or not. Simply admit that you can't do it since it is impossible to beat.

[quote="Heinera"][quote="FrediFizzx"][quote="Heinera"]I have absolutely no intention to participate in this thread except for pointing out that I know that this was not the real Tim Maudlin.[/quote]Naturally, since the challenge is impossible for Bell fans to shoot down.[/quote]No, it's because of the very wise advise of George Carlin: "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."[/quote]What's arguing got to do with it? Either you can beat the challenge or not. Simply admit that you can't do it since it is impossible to beat.

Heinera wrote:I have absolutely no intention to participate in this thread except for pointing out that I know that this was not the real Tim Maudlin.

Naturally, since the challenge is impossible for Bell fans to shoot down.

No, it's because of the very wise advise of George Carlin: "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

[quote="FrediFizzx"][quote="Heinera"]I have absolutely no intention to participate in this thread except for pointing out that I know that this was not the real Tim Maudlin.[/quote]Naturally, since the challenge is impossible for Bell fans to shoot down.[/quote]No, it's because of the very wise advise of George Carlin: "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

Heinera wrote:I have absolutely no intention to participate in this thread except for pointing out that I know that this was not the real Tim Maudlin.

Naturally, since the challenge is impossible for Bell fans to shoot down.

[quote="Heinera"]I have absolutely no intention to participate in this thread except for pointing out that I know that this was not the real Tim Maudlin.[/quote]Naturally, since the challenge is impossible for Bell fans to shoot down.